This book I had only heard about, never read:
It's worth reading, and it is worth reading in
the end. It's largely predictable, but then I think it's meant to be. Gordon
Comstock can only ever be a failure, even, especially, on his own terms. He
runs from the comfortable, satisfactory, though sometimes difficult and dull
life of the hard-working family man, and takes refuge in a romantic image of
himself which which probably can't exist, and which he, certainly, is quite
incapable of living up to. He completely fails to realize that what he is
running from is not imposed on anyone. It is what the people who have it want.
Not all of them succeed, but those who do are happy. He has chosen not to have
it, even though it is the route to everything he wants, including money, which
he is far more obsessed with even
than the people he pretends to despise, and he cannot have the girl he wants
until he becomes like them.
He, not them, is the victim of
the money-god. He is the one who measures everyone and everything in terms of
money. He is a silly, infantile creature who expects the world to take him
seriously because he has chosen to ignore it, to look down on it. He knows he
is not what he claims to be but expects other people to believe it and to value
it in a way that he himself cannot.
It is not surprising that he
ends up a normal working man, nor the mechanism chosen by Orwell to achieve it.
He begins to dimly understand that people choose to live the life he tried to
renounce, and they so choose for perfectly good reasons, the same reasons that
make him choose that life in the end. He wishes to live a symbolic life, as
Ravelston does, but Ravelston can afford to live such a life and Gordon can't.
I was surprised he threw away
the great poem, some of which wasn't bad, rather than keeping it locked in some
desk as a memory of another time. And putting an aspidistra in his window shows
a sense of humour and self-awareness that he has never appeared to have before.
2 comments:
And putting an aspidistra in his window shows a sense of humour
I'll now have to reflect on why that is.
You have to read the book, but basically it's an ironic reference to his failure to escape from a kind of life he pretended to dislike. I don't think the character would have been sufficiently self-aware to make that ironic statement, insist on it, even, in the face of opposition.
Post a Comment